Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#51

Post by gambiting »

CaptSpify wrote: post #48
gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

But driving on non-closed roads means you are interacting with people around you. Smoking, drinking, extreme-sports don't necessitate putting others at risk.

Second hand smoke harms people. A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol. Then of course we are all affected by cost of treatment of smokers/alcoholics/people harmed in sporting incidents. Don't know how the numbers compare to driving, but the point is that the author of the article maybe shouldn't authoritatively say what "we" need or don't need.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#52

Post by maxerickson »

rsync wrote: post #49
aetherson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making.

For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#53

Post by yellow_viper »

valine wrote: post #35

I dislike the idea of transportation as a service. I would much rather own a self driving car and use it as a mobile office. Being able to get work done during my commute would be a major benefit. I imagine having a full size monitor with a nice keyboard and mouse that I would leave in the car. That simply wouldn't be possible with a service like Uber.

Why not? Store all your data on the cloud - access it from the computer in the uber. Lots of people who commute to offices will have the same idea as you and uber will account for that.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#54

Post by Retric »

maxerickson wrote: post #52
rsync wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers.

PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#55

Post by Eridrus »

tyingq wrote: post #28
pif wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copying form an old comment of mine: - Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on. - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). - Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you…

One I thought of when I encountered it the other day... Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving. There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross…

A broken traffic light seems no different than a 4 way stop once you've realised it's broken, and I'm pretty sure Waymo can handle those already.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#56

Post by bpyne »

CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

"It's a fixture of complex adaptive systems analysis that one encounters scenarios where having anything short of perfection is just as good as useless."

Great point. It's one that not enough people are emphasizing.

I need to be physically engaged in the driving experience or I won't be attentive in the least. It's been a trait since childhood that my mental state is tied to physical activity. A car that keeps me physically uninvolved until it decides that it needs me would be a death trap for me and anyone around me.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#57

Post by CaptSpify »

gambiting wrote: post #51
CaptSpify wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But driving on non-closed roads means you are interacting with people around you. Smoking, drinking, extreme-sports don't necessitate putting others at risk.

Second hand smoke harms people. A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol. Then of course we are all affected by cost of treatment of smokers/alcoholics/people harmed in sporting incidents. Don't know how the numbers compare to driving, but the point is that the author of the article maybe shouldn't authoritatively say what "we" need or don't need.

> Second hand smoke harms people.

If you blow smoke in people's faces, you are an ass. I say this as someone who sometimes smokes.

> A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol.

But alcohol isn't the cause of this. I don't care why you are violent at home, but your an ass if you are.

These are situations where people are bringing in others on their activity unnecessarily. It's still apples to oranges IMO

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#58

Post by [deleted] »

aetherson wrote: post #41
bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

[deleted]

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#59

Post by maxerickson »

Retric wrote: post #54
maxerickson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy.

Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#60

Post by Nadya »

Retric wrote: post #54
maxerickson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident".

For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether.

Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf.

For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.

Post reply on HN